Allowed

Karamjit Kaur v. Gurjeet Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2024CR/1481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 227, holding that the Trial Court erred in dismissing an application to amend a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The amendment sought to disclose GPF and bank loan liabilities of the deceased without causing injustice.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed. The application for amendment of the written statement is allowed. The Trial Court must consider the amended written statement.

Karamjit Kaur Vs Gurjeet Kaur and Others — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

[130] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

¶2

CR-1481 - 2024 Date of D ecision : 13.11.2024

¶3

Karamjit K aur …Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

Gurjeet K aur and others ….Respondents

¶6

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶7

Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh Samber, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶10

[1] Petitioner is in revision und e r Article 227 of the Constitutio n of India agg r ieved of order dated 05.01.202 4 passed by the learned Addl. C ivil Judge (S e nior Division), Barnala where b y, application filed under Ord e r 6 Rule 17 C PC seeking amendment of the reply to the application filed u n der Section 3 72 of the Indian Succession A ct, stands declined. Respond e nts remain u n represented, despite service.

¶11

[2] Widow of Gagandeep Singh filed application under Section 3 72 of the A c t seeking Succession Certificate with respect to the estate lef t by Gagande e p Singh. Mother is the respond e nt. [3] By way of the present application, she sought amendment to the followin g effect:-

¶12

“2. That the applicant has n ot come to the court with clean h a nds because amount of GPF a n d other services benefits of late Gagandeep Singh are also d u e towards the department and late Gagandeep Singh has taken a l oan from HDFC Bank Limited

¶13

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.21 05:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CR-1481 - 2024

¶15

-2-

¶16

Branch Barnala the loan ac c ount no. of which is 64164835 the instalment is pending since 05.03.2019 the dues of which is pen d ing against Gagandeep Singh rega r ding these amounts applicant has not given any details in his ap p lication so the application of the applicant is liable to be dismis s ed. ”

¶17

[4] Learned Trial Court has dec l ined the amendment on the gro u nd that mot h er cannot be allowed to amen d the reply qua facts, which w ere earlier in her knowledge. After going through the impugned order, t his Court is s atisfied that the same cannot b e sustained. Explaining the sc o pe and the p u rpose behind Order 6 Rule 17 C PC, Supreme Court in the case of

¶18

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 4256 observed as un d er:

¶19

“70. Our final conclusions ma y be summed up thus:

¶20

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite c onditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of a m endment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea o f amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, mis c onceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to th e other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the w ord "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendmen t is to be allowed. (i) if the amendment is re q uired for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy b e tween the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of pr o ceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not r e sult in injustice to the other side,

¶21

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.21 05:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CR-1481 - 2024

¶23

-3-

¶24

(b) by the amendment, the pa r ties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear ad m ission made by the party which confers a right on the other side a nd

¶25

(c) the amendment does not r a ise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

¶26

(iv) A prayer for amendment i s generally required to be allowed unless

¶27

(i) by the amendment, a ti m e barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the f a ct that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor f or consideration,

¶28

(ii) the amendment changes t h e nature of the suit,

¶29

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

¶30

(iv) by the amendment, the oth e r side loses a valid defence.

¶31

(v) In dealing with a prayer f or amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertech n ical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

¶32

(vi) Where the amendment w ould enable the court to pinpointedly consider the dispute a n d would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer f or amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment m erely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach w ithout introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment i s liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

¶33

(viii) Amendment may be justif i ably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material p articulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for am e ndment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be a llowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

¶34

(x) Where the amendment ch a nges the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up a n entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the a mendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predica t ed on facts which are already

¶35

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.21 05:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CR-1481 - 2024 -4-

¶37

pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

¶38

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be l iberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fa ct that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the cas e set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not r esult in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest th e opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a res u lt of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amend m ent is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment shoul d be allowed. (See V ijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897 ). ”

¶39

[5] Tested on the ground of the a foresaid observations made by the Apex Co u rt, this Court finds that by way of proposed amendment, mo t her has only p roposed to bring on record the liabilities in the name of decea s edGagande e p Singh. Obviously, the afor e said fact if not brought on rec o rd, shall lea d to multiplicity of the litigatio n and thus the learned Trial C o urt erred in l a w by dismissing the applicatio n , seeking amendment in the wri t ten statemen t .

¶40

[6] In view of the above, the i m pugned order cannot be sustai n ed. The pres e nt revision petition is allowed . Application filed under Ord e r 6 Rule 17 C PC by the mother seeking ame n dment in the reply is allowed . T he learned T r ial Court shall consider the am e nded written statement.

¶41

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶42

‘R. Sharma'

¶43

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶44

13.11.20 2 4

¶45

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.11.21 05:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Karamjit Kaur v. Gurjeet Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamjit Kaur v. Gurjeet Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nafe Singh Vs Sawaran Singh & Ors.

Dayal Sarup Vs Raj Kumar & Ors.

Anjali Foundation Vs Anil Mehra

Mohit Gupta Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Esi etc. Vs Smt.Kamla Devi

Paramjit Singh Vs Baljeet Singh and Others